Philosophy as Self-deception.

substantivalism

A curious thought has presented itself to me as I've considered what point there is to even continuing philosophical investigations from the purview of the masses or among the academics. In greater force given it seems to me that philosophy and those who participate in it seem rather plentiful in their appetites' for the cannibalizations of themselves as well as those around them. The destruction of themselves for the sake of self-honesty in the name of skepticism while still holding conservative philosophies or the resurrection of self-informed rationalist intuitions to hold tight to their worldviews amidst the damning attacks of all others.

Is philosophy self-deception? Is it merely to shield our greater sensibilities from how things are or, more likely, regardless of what they are for the selfish endeavors of our own pragmatic benefit? To ignore blissfully the egoist reasons we hold to the philosophies we do?

I don't ask this merely in the sense of a negative reading of self-deception nor an admission of some childish thought process we have all had in times past regarding anything but ourselves. Such as those of non-religious fevers who decry the religious of dogmatic irrationalism but they themselves retain similar looking ad hoc rationalist intuitions of bare content. In a similar way their arise the eliminative materialists whose philosophy either borders on mere tautology or outright rejection of what allows for them to investigate these subject matters in the first place. The religious and mystics who try their best to bolster their own philosophical foundations with the vaguest impressions of the unknown.

Perhaps the only such philosophies I can think of which attempt to admit to this are those cousins of the ancient pyrrhonian skeptics. Who would argue as strongly for their positions as they would against to leave their audiences dumb founded. To be the one in the middle. That or some modern breed of falsificationism which always attempts when needed to admit of the experimental death that will inevitably befall all such testable claims.

However, even those assumptions (or meta-beliefs) of the pyrrhonians or the falsificationists could be carved away and in their own time found lacking. Further, even those who espouse these doctrines may not live up to their namesake and many would gladly even abandon them momentarily despite their intuitiveness for the pleasure of other philosophical desserts.

Why isn't it the case then that one not revel in deceiving themselves or always seeing others deceiving those around them no matter the issue or position held?

It seems philosophy is rightfully so concerned with truth. What's acceptable and what isn't by a authoritative dictate or the objectivity of some doctrine which hopefully has suppressed its subjective features. In the end, even those things philosophers try so heavily to discredit will remain within them despite the attempts to carve it out and philosophically exclaim, "See! It is dead and not one facet of it remains! From here on out it will haunt me no longer!"

I hope I have not been too pedantic or vague/esoteric in my own way.

unenlightened

If you think that the effort to discern the universal nature of philosophy is not a philosophical enterprise, then you are certainly deceiving yourself. :wink: Thus it always appears simultaneously as the malady, and its own homeopathic remedy.

I will simply suggest that illusion arises as a possibility from the existence of vision, but that does not make blindness preferable. Likewise one can deceive oneself if and only if one can also possibly be honest with oneself. To be open to both possibilities is to already be a philosopher.

schopenhauer1

Is philosophy self-deception? Is it merely to shield our greater sensibilities from how things are or, more likely, regardless of what they are for the selfish endeavors of our own pragmatic benefit? To ignore blissfully the egoist reasons we hold to the philosophies we do? — substantivalism

Philosophy raises the strictly pragmatic to that of aesthetic reflection... Even the philosophy of Pragmatism itself is an aesthetic view of things. It is to not walk in the world from one task to another, but to look at the whole, and see it upon reflection, whether that be metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, and values. These are things that take a secondary-reflection and not meant necessarily as to obtain some practical end. In this way, philosophy acts as therapy from the mundanity of everydayness, the feeling of being instrumental, and of only survival, and filling up one's free time with proscribed activities of society.

Why people choose particular philosophies, is a different matter. That is too complicated to answer in one mere post. However, I will say that certain philosophies often appeal to people's aesthetic sensibilities. It is when one can be critical of one's own dearly held philosophies, that one can be open to the synthesis of one's own efforts with others, participating in a sort of dialectic, that will form a novel understanding based on the other, previous ones, even if just small tweaks.

substantivalism

I will simply suggest that illusion arises as a possibility from the existence of vision, but that does not make blindness preferable. — unenlightened

Except, if blindness yielded vast catechisms of iron-clad, faithful, resolve and beautiful imagery in our minds over the dullness of what lay before us if we opened ours.

Likewise one can deceive oneself if and only if one can also possibly be honest with oneself. To be open to both possibilities is to already be a philosopher. — unenlightened

To search for what cannot be settled and always demand skeptical humility as if to always rationally castrate oneself for 'seeing'.

Further, the only personal honesty I can 'see' doesn't yield great poetic castles filled with metaphorical ruminations that paint one's eyes in their metaphysical beauty nor do I bear witness to objective natures I didn't already grasp intuitively.

Rather, I see charlatans of all philosophers including myself. People who steal from others to say the same things and despite their claims to fame they seem to know not more than any layman as to what nature lies before them. Mathematicians who know not more than the black board and physicists who can't think beyond the instrumental. Those philosophers, however, who claim to see beyond express their assertions in metaphorically meaningless expressions only for other fellow thinkers to restate them in the most mundane honest language possible showcasing that they revealed nothing. Over and over again. It grows tiresome when you expect the next author you read to make the same mistakes as the previous or some new ones.

Not mistakes of academic rigor, philosophical fallacies, or bad argumentative strategies. No, just the re-hashing of the same plot in more esoteric abstract manners or, even worse, in a low budget sense.

Philosophy raises the strictly pragmatic to that of aesthetic reflection... Even the philosophy of Pragmatism itself is an aesthetic view of things. It is to not walk in the world from one task to another, but to look at the whole, and see it upon reflection, whether that be metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, and values. These are things that take a secondary-reflection and not meant necessarily as to obtain some practical end. In this way, philosophy acts as therapy from the mundanity of everydayness, the feeling of being instrumental, and of only survival, and filling up one's free time with proscribed activities of society. — schopenhauer1

If that is the case then I have instilled a new hatred for 'philosophers' of various sorts as they mislead each other by claiming their beyond aesthetics but do it regardless. Masking their claims in authoritative language and absolutist terms to give their ego greater credence.

It is when one can be critical of one's own dearly held philosophies, that one can be open to the synthesis of one's own efforts with others, participating in a sort of dialectic, that will form a novel understanding based on the other, previous ones, even if just small tweaks. — schopenhauer1

That requires a certain breadth of care with the material of all others we've taken from which I may not possess for years. Its best that I stay silent until that time but I will have rather egregious slip ups out of personal weakness.

Astrophel

participating in a sort of dialectic, that will form a novel understanding based on the other, previous ones, even if just small tweaks. — schopenhauer1

On the other hand, while one may observe the world IN a particular dialectic setting, one can "face" a world of actualities that transcend this. An exhaustive philosophical account of my standing witness to this cup on the table reveals an impossible presence that is not reducible .

Astrophel

In greater force given it seems to me that philosophy and those who participate in it seem rather plentiful in their appetites' for the cannibalizations of themselves as well as those around them........
Is philosophy self-deception? Is it merely to shield our greater sensibilities from how things are or, more likely, regardless of what they are for the selfish endeavors of our own pragmatic benefit? To ignore blissfully the egoist reasons we hold to the philosophies we do? — substantivalism

I will grant that academic philosophy is self serving. I am thinking about what Heidegger said in his Nietzsche III:

Unequivocal rejection of all philosophy
is an attitude that always deserves respect, for it contains more of
philosophy than it itself knows. Mere toying with philosophical
thoughts, which keeps to the periphery right from the start because of
various sorts of reservations, all mere play for purposes of intellectual
entertainment or refreshment, is despicable: it does not know what is
at stake on a thinker's path of thought

But then, it does beg the question: "At stake"? Is there something actually at stake, or is it just repetition pretending to be meaningful?

And certainly, academic in the humanities: do they never tire the endless analyses, of analyses, or, well, prior analyses. I've written papers just like this. Papers from Hamlet to Hemmingway, just looking for that nuance of interpretation overlooked.

And I recall Critchley putting philosophy in the most enlightening position by undercutting all values and hope by showing how unsustainable hope is under analysis. Philosophy, he says, "begins with disappointment." Not a shield, but a shield against all shields, baring the world's horrors with no relief. I mean, have you read Schopenhauer's infamous descriptions?

The more recent taboo on life affirming metaphysics is to blame, really. Philosophy is pointless existential masochism without metaphysics. Empty spinning of wheels.

I don't ask this merely in the sense of a negative reading of self-deception nor an admission of some childish thought process we have all had in times past regarding anything but ourselves. Such as those of non-religious fevers who decry the religious of dogmatic irrationalism but they themselves retain similar looking ad hoc rationalist intuitions of bare content. In a similar way their arise the eliminative materialists whose philosophy either borders on mere tautology or outright rejection of what allows for them to investigate these subject matters in the first place. The religious and mystics who try their best to bolster their own philosophical foundations with the vaguest impressions of the unknown. — substantivalism

Those impressions are vague ONLY if they are received this way.

However, even those assumptions (or meta-beliefs) of the pyrrhonians or the falsificationists could be carved away and in their own time found lacking. Further, even those who espouse these doctrines may not live up to their namesake and many would gladly even abandon them momentarily despite their intuitiveness for the pleasure of other philosophical desserts. — substantivalism

This is an analytic reduction of "meta" from beliefs to beliefs about beliefs, and thus you have the long and winding road of back and forth. But there is in the post modern "taboo ontology" of real metaphysics. The Hindus love the movie The Matrix: "Is that air you are breathing?" The world of naming is not as vacuous as they want to say, but language should understood as essentially institutional (Is General Motors "real"?) and pragmatic, i.e., forward looking. That is a long story, but it does suggest why it is so difficult to escape physics in a move toward metaphysics: the pragmatic structure of our existence is learned since infancy.

"See! It is dead and not one facet of it remains! From here on out it will haunt me no longer!" — substantivalism

You sound a bit like Rorty. But Rorty didn't understand the metavalue of the world. Put in Kant's terms, noumena are supposed to be beyond reach, but on what basis is there a delimitation to the ultimate? Nonsense, if you can't talk about it, you certainly can't limit it. Only solution is, everything is noumenal. Of course, you could take Russell's pov and call Kant mere fantasy, but this is what you get when logicians declare the bottom line for philosophy. Emasculating positivism.

Ciceronianus

↪substantivalism

I proposed in a thread some time ago that philosophy is in certain respects an affectation (or affectation on the part of certain philosophers). For example, the claim that what is "really" real isn't what we interact with every day; a claim philosophers blithely disregard every moment of their lives; in that sense, an unnatural claim.

But it's not clear to me what you mean by "self-deception."

Philosophy as Self-deception.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions